The concept of simultaneous elections has started to gain prominence in politics since the mid-twentieth century. Over the years, it has turned out to be the best possible alternative to the existing electoral structure (frequent elections) that demands mammoth human and financial resources to run. Countries like Sweden, South Africa, Belgium, and Italy, among others, are popular examples to illustrate the achievements of holding simultaneous elections to municipal, state and parliament.
The latter electoral system has enabled the countries to considerably reduce their elections expenditures, consolidate the national identity and feeling of unity amongst their citizens, and to stabilise the state machinery and governance and minimise the continuance disruption of public life. The present study argues that these global trends have initiated a new political discourse in India.
However it is important to note that India had already followed this model of election from 1952 to 1967, but the practice of simultaneous elections was discontinued after 1967 while the Fifth Lok Sabha Elections were held (in 1971) before the schedule (1972). In the recent years, the policy-makers, election commission, civil society groups and political elites etc. have emphasized the significance of simultaneous election to further strengthening the Indian democracy and political culture.
Since 2014, Prime Minister Modi has always been presenting this significant and innovative concept to the nation. He also maintained that the viability of holing simultaneous elections to national parliament and state assemblies should be explored. He also coined a phrase, ‘One Nation One Election’ to popularise the campaign. In September 2014, the government had constituted an expert committee under the chairmanship of Dr. E M Sudarsana Natchiappan to look into the feasibility of simultaneous elections in India. On December 17, 2015, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice submitted its report entitled, ‘Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies’.
The committee noted that the simulations elections (to both Center and States) would enable the government to reduce: (i) the massive election expenditure, “the policy paralysis that results from the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during election time; and (iii) impact on delivery of essential services and (iv) burden on crucial manpower that is deployed during election time”. The need for simultaneous election was felt essentially because over the decades Indian Democracy has been a victim of petty party politics for electoral gains which has resulted into higher frequency of elections. As a result of greater number of elections which includes 16 general elections and hundreds of state legislative assembly elections not only the governance, economy of the country is disturbed it also has negatively impacted the essence of democracy in the country which has been reduced to once in a five-year event.
Constituent Assembly Debates on Elections in India
The Constituent Assembly of India was the pivotal organization which not only wrote and gave to the people of India their constitution declaring their sovereignty to the World. Debates that took place in the Assembly also reflect the intention and vantage point of our founding fathers. It gives us the idea as to what was hoped from the new nation to which this assembly was giving birth to. In one particular debate regarding the elections in India, in the Constituent Assembly not only the modus operandi of the future electoral processes were discussed in details it also gives clarity regarding the importance and intentions for democracy in India.
For our present discussion on simultaneous elections it is of significance because one prominent criticism of the simultaneous elections is that it will fundamentally change the electoral apparatus of Indian democracy. In this light one must consider the argument that K M Munshi gave in this particular debate. The larger debate was regarding the formation of Election Commission in India to oversee the electoral process across the nation, issue of impartiality of elections and the federal relations between the Centre and the states and perceived threat to provincial autonomy at the hands of excessively powerful centre.
For the significant discussion, potent are the thoughts of K M Munshi because not only did he touched on the nerve of the times he was addressing but also the need to recognize the fragility of the situation at hand where the newly born nation was laying her democratic roots. In the statement, he made in this particular debate he emphasized one aspect time and again and that was to consider issues from the time and space to which we belong and he argued “We must realise—and this is the general answer that I propose to give to my honourable Friends Pataskar and Chaliha—we can only consider the problems before us from the conditions as they exist today. We cannot forget the fact that some tenor eleven of the Indian States which are not accustomed even to the little measure of democratic life which is enjoyed by the provinces are coming into the Union on equal terms. We cannot ignore the fact there are corners in India where provincial autonomy requires to be placed on a better footing. In these conditions, it is but natural, apart from world conditions, that the Centre should have a larger measure of control over the affairs which affect the national existence as a whole.
Even in America in which it was not a question of the Centre decentralising itself, but thirteen, independent States coming together first in a sort of confederacy, and then in a federation what do we find? After the depression of 1929, agriculture, education, industry, unemployment, insecurity, all passed gradually by various means under the control or influence of the Centre. There, the Constitution is water-tight and they had to go round and round in order to achieve this result. There cannot be smaller units than a nation today; even a nation is small unit in the light of the international situation…. I would warn the members who are still harping on the same subject to remember one supreme fact in Indian history that the glorious days of India were only the days, whether under the Mauryas or the Moghuls, when there was a strong central authority in the country, and the most tragic days were those when the central authority was dismembered by the provinces trying to resist it. We do not want to repeat that fatal mistake….I therefore submit that this argument about Provincial Autonomy has no a priori theoretical validity. We have to judge every subject or matter from the point of view of what the existing conditions are and how best we can adjust the controls, either Central or Provincial to secure maximum national efficiency.”
Significant comments by NITI AAYOG on the possibilities of Simultaneous Elections
NITI AAYOG takes forward the discussion on Simultaneous Elections from the Standing Committee and discusses in detail the issues, modus operandi and the reservations around the concept of Simultaneous Elections. The paper conceptualizes simultaneous elections as “structuring the Indian election cycle in a manner that elections to Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies are synchronized together. In such a scenario, a voter would normally cast his/her vote for electing members of Lok Sabha and State Assembly on a single day.” That is conduction of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections at the same time. However, the circumstantial simultaneity was hampered from the 1967 elections. From that point on not only the cycle of elections for both Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies digressed, but also the exigencies of Indian politics at federal and central level along with electoral politics pressures took its toll on the Indian democracy.
Niti Aayog gives crude data to substantiate the point and argues that till 2021 the Country will witness imposition of MCC for about 4 months. It argues “Assuming the average period of operations of MCC as 2 months during elections to a state assembly… it would be reasonable to expect applicability of MCC for about 4 months or more every year till 2021.This mean development projects and programmes (that of the State Government going to polls and of Union Government in those states) may potentially get hit every year and that too for about one-third of the entire time available for implementing such projects and programmes.” It gives the example of expenditure incurred in general elections conducted in 2009 and 2014 which amounted, roughly to 1115 crore and 3870 crore rupees respectively. If one adds the expenditure of 31 state assembly elections the expenditure becomes exorbitant. For holding simultaneous elections, the ECI has calculated the cumulative costs to be at Rs 4500 crore. This is a clear indication that simultaneous elections will help in saving the public resources.
Lastly, while the idea of simultaneous elections in India is not without its challenges and complexities, the potential benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. This electoral reform has the potential to save resources, enhance governance, reduce polarization, and improve the overall quality of India’s democracy. As India continues to evolve and adapt to the demands of the 21st Century, implementing simultaneous elections can be a significant step towards strengthening the nation’s democratic foundations and ensuring a brighter future for its citizens.
Comments